A Comparative Study of Marking Behaviour of Teachers,
Teaching in Government and Private Schools
Mohammad Parvez1 and Mohd Shakir2
Dr Mohammad Parvez, Associate Professor, Department of Education, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002.U.P (INDIA)
Dr Mohd Shakir, Assistant Professor, Department of Education, AMU, Murshidabad Centre, 742223, W.B. (INDIA)[email protected]
Abstract
The present research aimed to study the marking behaviour of teachers teaching in government and private schools with respect to certain personal variables. Sample consisted of 104 teachers from Government Schools and 100 teachers from Private Schools at secondary level. Mean, SD and ‘t’ test were used to analyze the data. Findings revealed no significant difference between the marking behaviour of teachers, teaching in Government and Private Schools, between the marking behaviour of TGT teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools, between the marking behaviour of Permanent Teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools, whereas, a significant difference was found between the marking behaviour of PGT teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools and between the marking behaviour of Temporary Teachers, Teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools.
Key words: Examination, Mark, Educational Culture, Reliability, Validity and Marking Behaviour etc. Introduction
Evaluation implies an assessment or checking of what goes on. This is done so that actual facts of situation may be ascertained and remedial action can be taken where it is necessary. (Aggarwal, 1997). “Evaluation is a continuous process and forms an integral part of the total system of education, and is intimately related to educational objectives. It helps not only to measure educational achievement but also to improve it” (Education Commission, 1964-66). During an academic session, the students are provided with different kinds of knowledge and experiences in the school and it is essential for teacher to be aware with the learning outcomes of the students. The technique used for knowing the learning outcomes is known as examination. According to Secondary Education Commission (1952-53) “the subject of examination and evaluation occupies an important place in the field of education. It is necessary for parents and teachers to know from time to time that how the pupils are progressing and what their attainments are at any particular stage. Examinations are the means adopted for this purpose.” The purpose of examinations and evaluations is to assess the students’ performance. Emphasizing the importance of examination, University Education Commission (1948) has rightly remarked that “if they were to make a single recommendation, it would be that of examination reform.” So, examinations are an important ingredient of an educational system. After examination, marking is the next step, wherein the teacher or examiner quantifies the performance level of the student. In fact “marks and marking have been very deeply imbedded in the educational culture. It has become the basis, in whole or in part, for a wide range of actions and decisions within a given educational institution, between levels in the educational structure, and in relations of the educational system to the outside world (Thorndike & Hagen, 1979). Mark is a term which is used to indicate raw scores on a test or examination.” C.V. Good (1973) clarified the meaning of a mark as “a value or rating which indices how a performance is to be valued, especially, a rating of school work given by the teacher and a rating of achievement assigned on the basis of some scale.” Marks are assigned to quantify the performance. Marks are informative; they provide information about the students’ performance. With the help of marks, strength and weakness of a child in a specific subject can be ascertained and can be remedied. Teachers too may benefit by reviewing marks. They can formulate new approaches for presenting material, consider new ways to instruct specific children or change a course in the future (Ali, 2001).
The examination system followed in India mostly consists of essay type examination. Essay type examination has some drawbacks, like lack of validity and reliability. The most serious one is lack of reliability; it means marks of a student may vary from one examiner to another. This paper would attempt to study the variations in marking due to certain personal factor influencing the examiner.
Marking Behaviour
Marking is defined as a system which assigns a numerical score, used for evaluating and reporting achievement in students’ work in schools (Abdul & Jisha, 2014).
In the present study, investigators defined the marking behaviour operationally as “that type of behaviour which an examiner exhibits while marking an answer book of a student.” It is a process of reading a written response carefully and thoroughly judging its accuracy and quality and assigning a numeral value to quantify that
judgement.
The present study is planned to study the impact of examiner as a factor in determining marks awarded on the same essay test written by the same student. In this study, marks awarded were taken as a dependent variable and the variables associated to examiners were taken as independent variables, such as type of institution, designation, and position.
Government Schools
Those schools which are owned, established and managed by the Central or State Government. Private Schools
wnership, establishment, and management of private school are under the control of private persons, businessmen, missionaries, societies. They are managed by those who are motivated to the cause of promoting education or by individuals who are making their living by running Schools.
Research Gap
Investigators have tried their best to explore the existing literature on marking behaviour of teachers, but, despite best efforts they could not find even a single study comparing the marking behaviour of Teachers, teaching in Government and Private Schools at Secondary level. However, a research study was conducted by the investigators themselves, comparing the marking behaviour of Teachers, teaching in Government and Private Schools at senior secondary level. To unearth more information, the present study is conducted at secondary level. It clearly shows that there is a research gap which motivated the investigators to conduct the present study. The investigators strongly believe that a comparative study of marking behaviour of Teachers, teaching in Government and Private Schools at Secondary level would be much helpful in identifying those factors that govern the marking behaviour of the teachers/examiners. It would bring about a substantial change in the marking behaviour of Teachers towards evaluation. Hence, following objectives have been framed for the present research study.
Objectives of the Study: The present study was aimed at achieving the following objectives: 1. To study the distribution of marks awarded by different examiners to the same written response.
2. To find out the difference in marking behaviour of teachers teaching in schools at secondary level, grouped with respect to their personal characteristics like:
a) Type of institution (Government or Private), the teacher is associated with.
b) Designation (PGT or TGT)
c) Position in the job (Permanent or Temporary)
Hypotheses: Hypotheses are formulated in null form;
1. There is no significant difference in marking behaviour of Teachers, teaching in Government and Private Schools at Secondary level.
2. There is no significant difference in marking behaviour of PGT Teachers, teaching in Government and
Private Schools at Secondary level.
3. There is no significant difference in marking behaviour of TGT Teachers, teaching in Government and
Private Schools at Secondary level.
4. There is no significant difference in marking behaviour of Permanent Teachers, teaching in Government
and Private Schools at Secondary level.
5. There is no significant difference in marking behaviour of Temporary Teachers, teaching in Government
and Private Schools at Secondary level. Methods and Materials
Design: This study falls under the category of descriptive research. Thus, survey design was adopted to carry out the research work.
Population: In the present study all the teachers, teaching English in all the Secondary Schools of District Aligarh constitute the population.
Sample: In the present study, sample consisted of 204 teachers (104 teachers from Government Schools and 100 Teachers from Private Schools) taken through purposive sampling technique.
Tools Used
1. Essay Answer.
2. Personal Data Sheet (PDS) developed by the investigators, which include the following variables related to
the teacher, type of the institution attached to (Government or Private), designation (PGT/TGT) and position of the Teacher (Permanent/Temporary).
Data Collection
The investigators visited the selected schools personally and administered the ‘Essay Answer’ on 30 sampled students of class IX and they were asked to write an essay independently in about two pages on title, “Harmful Effects of Video Games.” Forty minutes were given to the students as time limit. After they have written their answers, the scripts were collected. Then out of these 30 scripts, one script was chosen at random and used as one of the tools known as ‘Essay Answer’. About 250 photocopies of this script were obtained and distributed among the teachers. The sample of teachers included only the English teachers of selected Government and Private Secondary Schools of Aligarh District of UP India. The teachers were asked to award the marks to the students’ essay type answer out of 25 marks. Out of 250 copies, 204 were received back. A single script was used in the present study resulting in control of many extraneous variables such as handwriting, language and other variables based on students.
Statistical Techniques Used. Mean, Standard Deviation and t-test were applied.
Analysis and Interpretation of Data: Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) Version 16 was used for the analysis of data. Hypothesis wise analysis is as follows:
In order to test the Ho1, t-test was applied.
Table 1 showing the comparison of marking behaviour of teachers, teaching in government and private schools at secondary level
Basis N Mean SD df t-value
Teachers Teaching in Government Schools 104 18.41 2.53
202 -1.416*
Teachers Teaching in Private Schools. 100 18.93 2.68
*Not Significant at 0.05 level
An inspection of Table.1 shows that ‘t-value’ is not significant at 0.05 level. This means there is no significant difference in marking behaviour of teachers, teaching in Government and Private Schools at Secondary level. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted. The present finding is in consonance with the findings obtained by Parvez & Shakir (2012) who have reported no significant difference in marking behaviour of teachers, teaching in government schools and private schools at senior secondary level.
In order to test the Ho2, t-test was applied.
Table 2 showing the comparison of marking behaviour of PGT teachers, teaching in government and private schools at secondary level
Basis N Mean SD df t-value
PGT Teachers Teaching in Government
Schools 54 17.89 2.30 298 -2.626*
PGT Teachers Teaching in Private Schools 46 19.15 2.50
*Significant at 0.01 level
A close examination of Table 2 reveals that the ‘t-value’ is significant at 0.01 level. This means there is a significant difference in marking behaviour of PGT teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected. The Present finding is refuted by the work of Parvez & Shakir (2012) who have found no significant difference in marking behaviour of PGT teachers, teaching in government senior secondary schools and PGT teachers, teaching in private senior secondary schools.
In order to test the Ho3, t-test was applied.
Table 3 showing the comparison of marking behaviour of TGT teachers, teaching in government and private schools at secondary level
Basis N Mean SD df t-value
TGT Teachers Teaching in
Government Schools 46 18.57 2.30
94 -.721*
TGT Teachers Teaching in Private
Schools 50 18.90 2.25
*Not Significant at 0.05 level
A close perusal of Table.3 shows that the ‘t-value’ -.721 is not significant at 0.05 level. This means there is no significant difference in marking behaviour of TGT teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools. Hence the hypothesis is accepted. This finding also draws support from the findings obtained by Parvez & Shakir (2012) who have reported no significant difference in marking behaviour of TGT teachers, teaching in government senior secondary schools and TGT teachers, teaching in private senior secondary schools.
Table 4 showing the comparison of marking behaviour of permanent teachers, teaching in government and private schools at secondary level
Basis N Mean SD df t-value
Permanent Teachers Teaching in
Government Schools 64 18.36 2.41
112 -1.914*
Permanent Teachers Teaching in Private
Schools 50 19.24 2.47
*Not Significant at 0.01 level
Table 4 clearly shows that the ‘t-value’ -1.914 is not significant at 0.01 level. This means there is no significant difference in marking behaviour of Permanent Teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted. Present finding is refuted by the work of Parvez & Shakir (2012) who have reported a significant difference in marking behaviour of permanent teachers, teaching in government senior secondary schools and permanent teachers, teaching in private senior secondary schools.
In order to test the Ho5, t-test was applied.
Table 5 showing the comparison of marking behaviour of temporary teachers, teaching in government and private schools at secondary level
Basis N Mean SD df t-value
Temporary Teachers Teaching in
Government Schools 36 17.06 2.15
80 -3.363*
Temporary Teachers Teaching in Private
Schools. 46 19.12 3.13
*Significant at 0.01 level
A glance at Table 5 shows that the ‘t-value’ -3.363 is significant at 0.01 level. This means there a significant difference in marking behaviour of temporary teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected. This finding concurs with the work of Parvez & Shakir (2012) who have found a significant difference in marking behaviour of temporary teachers, teaching in government senior secondary schools and temporary teachers, teaching in private senior secondary schools.
Findings of the Study:
1. No significant difference was found between the marking behaviour of teachers, teaching in Government and Private Schools at Secondary level.
2. A significant difference was found in the marking behaviour of PGT teachers, teaching in Government and
Private Secondary Schools.
3. No significant difference was found in the marking behaviour of TGT teachers, teaching in Government and
Private Secondary Schools.
4. No significant difference was found in the marking behaviour of Permanent Teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools.
5. A significant difference was found in the marking behaviour of temporary teachers, teaching in Government
and Private Secondary Schools. Conclusion
The aim of this research paper was to investigate difference in marking behaviour of Teachers, Teaching in Government and Private Schools at Secondary level by taking into account a few personal characteristics like type of institution, the designation, and position in the job. After analyzing the results it is concluded that there was no significant difference between the marking behaviour of teachers, teaching in Government and Private Schools, between the marking behaviour of TGT teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools, between the marking behaviour of Permanent Teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools, whereas, a significant difference was found between the marking behaviour of PGT teachers, teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools, and also between the marking behaviour of Temporary Teachers, Teaching in Government and Private Secondary Schools.
Educational Implications
The findings of this study are significant in many ways. First findings of the study have been able to expose the marking behaviour of teachers teaching English in Government and Private Schools at Secondary level. The findings would also serve as bases for offering useful suggestions to all stakeholders in examination and evaluation. The second implication of the study is that findings would offer the opportunity to compare our evaluation methods and procedure of essay type answers and resulting in evaluating copies with international
secondary schools have awarded more marks in comparison than to their counterparts, concrete directions regarding the means to make marking more objective and scientific need to be thought upon and implemented. Decision makers and policy makers need to think about the implementation of right marking system. The findings of the study can be used as a consultant model with a wide spectrum of implications for teachers and examiners. And they can be trained properly for school-based evaluation and to review current literature theory, research and best practices used in marking.
References
Abdul, G.K., & Jisha, P. (2014). A study of reliability of marking and absolute grading in secondary schools.
Guru Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Vol. 2 (2), 292-298.
Aggarwal, J.C. (1997). Teaching of Social Studies-A Practical Approach, (III Revised Edition). New Delhi, Vikas Publishing House Private limited, pp.207-227.
Ali, M. (2001). Psychological Aspects of Marking Behaviour in Educational System. New Delhi, Anmol Publications Private Limited, pp.1-9.
Good, C.V. (1973). The Dictionary of Education. New Delhi, McGraw Hill, Inc, p.350.
Government of India (1949). Report of the University Education Commission (1948-49), Ministry of Education, New Delhi.
Government of India (1953). Report of the Secondary Education Commission (1952-53), Ministry of Education, New Delhi, pp.145-153.
Government of India (1966). Report of the Education Commission (1964-66), Ministry of Education, New Delhi, pp.397-438.
Kochhar, S.K. (1981). Secondary School Administration. New Delhi, Sterling Publishers Private Limited, pp.383-412.
Parvez, M., & Shakir, M. (2012). Marking behaviour of teachers teaching in senior secondary schools. Journal of Community Guidance and Research, Vol.29 (3), 462-472
Thorndike, R.L., & Hagen, E.P. (1979). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education, (IV Edition), New Delhi, Wiley Eastern Limited, pp.568-606.
